Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Ashir

A Few Things I Have Against Islam

Recommended Posts

Your reply is all good and civil, except the part where you said "the old men in tents who wrote your holy book". Kindly do not resort to such insulting statements, and always remember that you are in an Islamic forum.

 

As for your humanistic ethics, this proved to be a disaster in many situations.

It doesn't stop you people from taking your own lovely pets to the vet and asking them to remove their reproductive organs. It doesn't stop you from supporting state terrorism, if it would suppress people that you don't like. It didn't stop you from racism in the past, massacring black people, Jews and other minorities, even wiping out whole races and originals, if that makes your economy expand and prosper. It doesn't prevent you from producing and selling weapons of mass destruction to both fighting parties if you wanted them to finish each other, while keeping the cash flowing at home.

 Your argument can be turned against you - Islamic ethics didn't prevent people from hijacking aircraft and crashing them iinto building, nor did it prevent them from blowing themselves up in restaurants or kidnapping schoolchildren and keeping them as hostages. No other religion produces violent attacks in such numbers as your does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

[at]GY

 

Choosing to attack one side, and avoiding the other makes you biased, and probably an enemy of Islam.

 

 Your argument can be turned against you - Islamic ethics didn't prevent people

 

You could be true, although the terror incidents you're referring to are controversial, and many western non-Muslim writers said there are credible evidences that they were plotted acts to frame Muslims, then use as an excuse to attack and invade Muslim nations. But let's assume you're right. Notice that those were "people" terrorizing individuals. That is different than counties who send their armies to wipe out whole nations overseas. Terrorist groups are there in all religions and colors, they're not exclusive to Muslims. And don't forget the oppression factor. When they kill your whole family, you would probably do the same and, if you have no access to any defensive weaponry, you would probably blow yourself in the ones who killed your loved ones. Suicide is haram/unlawful in Islam though, and you cannot expect all Muslims to follow the Islamic guidance. At times of oppression, the human nature acts out of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guan Yu, I have to take exception to what you say about no other religion producing violent attacks like Islam. If you go back throughout history, Catholics have actually committed more violence than just about any group. Take for example everything from the Crusades (which were definitely the Catholic church being violent), the Inquisition, and you can bring it forward to the sectarian violence that has engulfed Ireland for decades if not centuries. That's just one point.

 

Also, there are extremists from such peaceful groups as Buddhists and Hindus that go around murdering, raping, etc. At least have the decency to admit when you're wrong about this.

 

Yes, there are some Muslims who have committed heinous acts. But each time that happens, the majority comes out and strongly condemns it. Not that the media wants to tell you that. The media operates in an Us vs. Them world. And they seek to sensationalize. I also know atheists who go around committing violent attacks against theists. So should I say that all atheists then are bloodthirsty killers? That's what you seem to imply when you paint with overly broad brushes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what's your definition of oppression. At no point of time did any Western country try to wipe out the entire population of a Muslim country. It wasn't our goal in Afghanistan, Iraq or Gaza (in fact Gaza gets three quarters of it's electricity from israel and Arabic is an official language, besides Hebrew - something my countrymen couldn't even dream of when we were occupied 100 years ago). And even if I am wrong - how does oppresion justify killing innocent people who have nothing to do with the country's policy? 

 

You are right by saying that terrorism isn't limited exclusively to Islam. There is Christian terrorism and even Buddhist terrorism but the scale of these phenomena is nowhere near close to Islamic one. For example - I've seen Muslims happily citing attacks on US abortion clinics as a proof that Christian terrorism does exist. Indeed, it does exist - since 1970 or so there've been 9 such attacks resulting in 11 deaths which gives us 1 death every 4 years - hardly a big number. How does it compare to e.g. 2004 Madrid bombing (180 dead) or 2007 bombings of Yazidi communities in Iraq (more than 700 dead)? Similar attacks occur on a daily basis. 

 

Why was I issued a warning? I simply stated a fact that can be verified easily, without offending anyone personally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guan Yu, I have to take exception to what you say about no other religion producing violent attacks like Islam. If you go back throughout history, Catholics have actually committed more violence than just about any group. Take for example everything from the Crusades (which were definitely the Catholic church being violent), the Inquisition, and you can bring it forward to the sectarian violence that has engulfed Ireland for decades if not centuries. That's just one point.

 

Also, there are extremists from such peaceful groups as Buddhists and Hindus that go around murdering, raping, etc. At least have the decency to admit when you're wrong about this.

 

Yes, there are some Muslims who have committed heinous acts. But each time that happens, the majority comes out and strongly condemns it. Not that the media wants to tell you that. The media operates in an Us vs. Them world. And they seek to sensationalize. I also know atheists who go around committing violent attacks against theists. So should I say that all atheists then are bloodthirsty killers? That's what you seem to imply when you paint with overly broad brushes.

There is a lot of misunderstanding here. Regarding Buddhism and Hinduism - there ARE violent attacks involving members of these religions openly citing religion as their motivation - but compare the scale of these attacks.

 

Regarding the Crusades - they were a limited response to a larger Muslim attack. The first crusade began in 1095, more than 450 years after the first Christian city fell into Muslim hands and more than 300 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies. And they weren't entirely European initiative - Byzantium (aka Eastern Roman Empire) pleaded the Pope to send reinforcements to prevent Seljuk Turks from overpowering them. Incidentally(?) the greatest period of prosperity in the Levant started with the arrival of the Crusaders. Even Amin Malouf (normally a very pro-Muslim author) has admitted that during crusader rule a typical Palestinian peasant was richer and had more rights than during Islamic rule.

 

Regarding the Inquisition - by saying that it was especially violent you're repeating 16th century Protestant propaganda, created to justify its own atrocities. Protestant terror was far worse than Catholic one. Number of people killed by the Inquisition is estimated to be a few dozen thousands - at the time it was the most objective judical body that had ever existed. 

Edited by Guan Yu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Crusades were brutal, and in fact were genocidal. The Christian crusaders killed not just Muslims but Jews indiscriminately. Also, Christians were the worst examples of anti-Semitism that existed in my knowledge as a historian.

 

We are also forgetting probably the worst atrocities EVER committed by people and I wasn't going to bring them up until you mentioned the scale of attacks. Why? Because these reigns of terror were committed by Atheists. Ever heard of Stalin? Considering where you're from, I would think you have. How many millions did Stalin kill, outside of war? He was an avowed atheist. One can also argue that Hitler was a bit of an atheist, as he turned against Christian principles.

 

What I am saying is...NO group is perfect and NO group can be the sole blame of things. You decry Muslims because according to everyone, 19 men killed almost 3000 civilians. Yes, that is heinous (and I lost friends in the Twin Towers). You criticize Muslims in Palestine for suicide bombings (which I am against as well), but make no mention of the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Jewish extremists throughout the area starting even before israel ever existed. There are always two sides to a story.

 

I mentioned the Irish issue because I actually have family members who took part in it. Until 9/11, no one had really paid all that much attention to extremist Muslims, simply because there weren't that many (and still aren't). Now all of a sudden, all the world's ills are due to Muslims. Imagine that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think atheism is more responsible for Stalin than e.g. printing press is responsible for Hitler's "Mein Kampf". Simply because atheism is not a political ideology, There are atheist communists, atheist libertarians, atheist Buddhists and so on.

 

We pretty much agree that no group is perfect - but I also think that different groups are perfect to different degrees. I think you'll agree with me that communist countries will always be more violent and oppressive towards their own citizens than e.g. libertarian ones - because their ideologies are based on completely different assumptions. 

 

it's the same with religions. If you compare Islamic beliefs and history with - for example - Buddhist history, you will see a sharp contrast. Buddha's disciples never practiced violence against non-Buddhists, they never fell into war with each other and Buddhism spread to several countries without a single drop of blood shed or without any other means of oppression (tax burden). Nowdays there are dozens of Buddhist schools, some of them differ from each other to the point of being almost different religions - yet still the vast majority of Buddhist scholars respect them and hold them as equally valid as their own tradition. 

 

Compare it to Islam - within less than 30 years after Muhammad's death people who knew him and his religion best started fighting each other Hostilities developed between members of Muhammad's family and Muhammad's companions. Even within the companions' camp there was a strong rivalry between earlier Meccan converts (Muhajireen) and later ones (Ansar). No one could explain why there was so much hostility between Aisha and Ali, considering the fact that they were both hold as perfect Muslims by Muhammad. Up to this day Sunni and Shia Muslims are still at each other's throat, despite the fact that differences between them are smaller than differences between e.g. Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism. 

 

I don't want to start a sectarian discussion - as that's forbidden on this forum and such discussions are generally pointless. 

Edited by Guan Yu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Regarding the Crusades - they were a limited response to a larger Muslim attack. The first crusade began in 1095, more than 450 years after the first Christian city fell into Muslim hands and more than 300 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies. And they weren't entirely European initiative - Byzantium (aka Eastern Roman Empire) pleaded the Pope to send reinforcements to prevent Seljuk Turks from overpowering them. Incidentally(?) the greatest period of prosperity in the Levant started with the arrival of the Crusaders. Even Amin Malouf (normally a very pro-Muslim author) has admitted that during crusader rule a typical Palestinian peasant was richer and had more rights than during Islamic rule.

 

That's a serious thing to say GY. Are you aware that you're supporting civilian killings here? We have zero tolerance in this forum for any such shameless support of terror. I'll give you a chance to correct this, by reading more about it, until you become convinced that what the crusades did in Palestine was one of the worst genocides humanity even witnessed, then share your new findings with us please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is what he said about the inquisition in accurate?  Plus, remember the crusades were a defensive war that numbered eight over a two hundred year span.  As for the madness of the crusades.  Even though with the rise of Islam things were strict for Christians.  Its the worst treatment was in 1009 when Hakim the Caliph in a fit of madness ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all the Christian settlements in Jerusalem. To which there was an eye witness  Iahja of Antioch, in Schlumberger's "Epopée byzantine", II, 442.   

 

Now to stay within guidelines at this forum I admit the Christians were bad as well but not that bad.  The crusades are partly what caused the great distrust between Eastern Christianity and Western and continue to be stumbling block for the Orthodox and Catholic unification today due to bad blood and long memories.  As a Maronite Catholic I am aware of this. 

 

At the end of the day its the whole subjugation issue I have a problem with.  True, Christians can and did survive under those circumstances even today.  But its still not right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Amna4

 

So are you saying that the quran tells men that they may wack their wives but does not instruct women either way so by default they are allowed?  From my understanding a husband and wife are considered exactly equal in the marriage except that if they cannot agree in which case the husband gets the casting vote to settle the dispute.  Surely he could thus just instruct his wife not to hit him and use his casting vote to ensure he won that argument while the same would not apply to her.  His wife could not tell him not to hit her because, again, he could use his casting vote to overrule her in his own favour. Now I’m not suggesting that most muslim men aren’t perfectly nice to their wives but that is in fact the way Islam works at least according the the muslims who explained it to me so the men have that power even if they choose not to use it while the women don’t.

 

I’ve met some very violent women, women I wouldn’t want to get on the wrong side of, but on average you are right, men are more violent.  Humanism says that we must all be judged on our merit, no one gets an extra benefit or restriction unless they have personally earned it.  The exception that I accept is age where children have more restrictions than adults but that is only till they grow.  Under humanism a person is forbidden from bashing another person regardless of the sex’s involved.  Obviously more men than women need that restriction but some women certainly need it too so why discriminate unless that was to make a specific point.  Modern eye’s may see the lack of a restriction as the quran saying it’s OK for the woman to hit her husband but I’m guessing that those alive at the time it was written would not have thought that way.

 

The verse which tells a man how far it is permissible to go with his wife sounds from the outside as if it paints the relationship as one of parent to child rather than a relationship of equals does that sound like a reasonable view?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guan Yu

 

Actually atheism is, at its root, just the absence of a belief in a god.  While people who believe there is no such thing are atheists so are those who simply have never found a god description in which they believe.  Even children who are ignorant of god due to their age or lack of education are atheists.  A theist can point to a god and say I believe in that one while an atheist can’t.  That’s all there is to atheism, no dogma, no ‘holy books’ or any equivalents just a simple lack of belief.

 

My understanding was that Buddha did not believe in a god, though he did hold supernatural beliefs, but he was a very moral person.  Certainly the statistics today suggest that morality and atheism go hand in hand.

 

I don’t believe that today’s moral direction in the west, humanism, is derived from ‘the frankfurt school’ though they may have started the ball rolling.  Homosexuality is permitted for the simple reason that there is no reason not to.  It causes no harm and it makes people happy so why would you prevent it.  I understand that some people’s idea of god does not like it but I’d have to suggest that, until he comes down here and tells us that himself, here and now, we can discount that view.  I suspect that the real source of that moral view was ancient men a long time ago.  Men who would have had no way of knowing what our society would look like and be capable of today.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dot

 

Even the comment about the location of the writing of your holy book was civil and it was in fact exactly what I believe to be the case.  If you wish to present an opposing view, say that these people lived in houses I’m happy to hear it.

 

Are you suggesting that desexing our pets is in some way a problem?  In this country we have a huge number of foreign species which have gone wild due to their escape from captivity with their reproductive abilities intact.  Desexing helps with this overpopulation problem without harming the animals.  We could just stop keeping pets and have them all put down but that’s hardly going to help them.  Should I list all of the destructive imports which have escaped captivity and now cause huge harm to our environment?  Let’s see, rabbits, dogs, cats, horses, water buffalo, camel, cain toads, pigs, black birds, pidgeons, carp…  I could go on and on but I’m sure you get the point.  All of these and many many more are introduced pests which destroy our ecosystem because they were allowed to escape from captivity with their reproductive abilities intact.

 

Actually my humanism does stop me supporting any form of terrorism.  I would stop those guy’s flying planes into the world trade centre or the country who invades another for their own ends.  If it were up to me neither would happen.  I would also oppose those who oppress their own people in the names of their religious ideas if that were in my power.  It’s not of course but if it were I would stop all of these things.

 

I’ve never massacred anyone, black, jew or minority and I would never support such ideas.  You really have a mucked up view of me don’t you?

 

I’m sure you can, by now, guess at my answer to your claims of weapons of mass destruction so I probably don’t need to tell you that I oppose all such actions.  Should I point out that the vast majority of those who support such actions are religious people, christians in particular?

 

No again you’ve misunderstood humanism and me.  It’s not about making me happy, though that is an outcome that should come of humanism, rather it’s about creating a moral code which maximizes the sum of human happiness.  That means it has to make everyone happy including you or it has failed.

 

I guess I live in a society which has had the freedoms you claim would destroy marriage etc for a very long time and the doom you see for us has not come true.  Women don’t go out and try men all over the place and decide that their husbands aren’t good enough and so leave.  I’m not saying that never happens but it’s a very rare thing and maybe some men are worth leaving as are some women.  Do you really think that the happiest of all societies is built by keeping people in the dark about such possibilities?  If they could be happier with another person should they not be free to be with that person?  I’m really happy that I know my wife stays with me because of how she feels about me even though she could just leave at any time.

 

Maybe the love my wife and I share will evaporate one day but if she was unhappy being with me it’s unlikely that I’d still enjoy being with her and we may well be better to separate and find people we could be happy with.  Love does not always last forever but the evidence clearly shows that people who admit that, separate and find someone else are far happier than those who stay together in a loveless marriage.

 

Suicide is a tragedy for all involved but I think you paint too simplistic a picture of it in your last post.  There may well be more suicides in my society but are there more miserable people or are the miserable people in your society kept alive and miserable by the fear of punishment after death by god while in our society many are cured by medical intervention while a small but significant minority do actually kill themselves.  Is it not true that you may reach the point where your own life actually has no value to you and you should be allowed to end it?  We are not allowed to commit suicide in my society but I believe that we should be in the right circumstances.  Those suffering from incurable and painful diseases should be allowed for example once they get beyond the point at which they can gain any joy from their own lives.

 

You’re right, just because I’m happy does not mean that everyone is.  I’d actually be surprized if everyone was but the vast majority are from my experience and my society works to help those who are not.  Yes some people would not act morally by choice but we have laws which prevent many of the acts that they may do to harm others.

 

You are right that there are bad people everywhere, statistics suggest that the percentage of atheists who are bad is way below the average for our population but there will always be exceptions and we do still have to deal with the far higher number of bad people who come from the various faith traditions we share this place with.

 

No one ever suggested that we should leave all of this for each individual to decide.  The idea of humanistic morality is that we must build a moral code that everyone must abide by, that this code must restrict people as little as possible to allow them the freedom to enjoy their lives to the fullest extent possible without interfering with other people’s rights to enjoy their lives.  That includes locking up sociopaths for example because their idea of happiness is incompatible with the happiness of the rest of society.  I’m sure they would be unhappy being locked up but they would cause far more unhappiness if they were allowed to continue in our society living their idea of the perfect life.

 

Obviously I disagree that Islam gives the best balance to all people but you are certainly welcome to try to defend that position here point by point if you like.  I’d be interested to hear how you do that given the problems I have already and will in the future point out with it.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nightingale

 

Stalin was a horrible man, he was an atheist and he probably drank milk during his life but I don’t see anyone going on about milk drinkers.  I’m guessing there are lots of things he did in his life and lots of beliefs he held that, like atheism, had nothing whatever to do with the atrocities he committed.  You seem to be treating atheism as a religion but this is a serous misunderstanding.  Atheism is to religion as bald is to hair colour.  There is no dogma of atheism, there is no teaching of atheism no holy book, no bible, no quran.  All of the positive ideas he held, the ideas which lead him to kill, came from other sources than atheism.

 

Hitler was an avowed catholic and he is still held by the catholic church to be a catholic in good standing.  He was never excommunicated even though others have been even posthumously.  I agree that he turned against christian principals but then so have the majority of christians in one way or another.  I’ve not heard lately of many disobedient children being stoned to death at the gates of the city as the bible commands as just one example.

 

I agree however that no group is perfect and no group can wear the sole blame for these sorts of actions but you all have to stand up and accept the responsibility that the beliefs you hold earns you.  I’m yet to see an atrocity committed in the name of humanism though if you can find any please tell me but religions of all stripes create people who do horrible things in the name of their religion even if they are corrupting the meaning of their religion to do so.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

It’s true some atheists are nicer people than believers but I’ve met some really great believers too.  I suspect that truly horrible people tend to be believers, not necessarily believers in gods but believers in one or the other human made creeds of which gods are just one variety.  Nice people, on the other hand, don’t have to be believers but really horrible people do apparently.

 

I live in the bush and the sky is spectacular on every clear night especially late on those moonless nights when you can see so much of the milky way.  Truly amazing.  It doesn’t speak of god to me but it does speak of grandeur, of amazing detail, of the spectacularly huge nature of the universe we inhabit.  What I don’t understand is, how anyone can look up at that and believe that of all the billions of billions of life friendly locations that must be out there god likes this one tiny, insignificant species on this one tiny spec earth?

 

And in that vast universe I’m improbable, what are the chances that the right combination of DNA would have formed and flowed for over 3.5 billion years to form me yet here I stand the most improbable of beings.  But that is rather like looking back on your lotto win and saying, how improbable when the odds are, after the fact, 100% that you have won.  No matter the odds before I was born the odds are now 100% that I was born and I do live and I have to make the most of the one and only life I’ve got to live here and now.  If there’s anything after this life we have no evidence for it.  I suspect it’s much like not having been born yet to be honest.

 

Yes the scriptures are poetic stories designed to lead people to this idea called god but that idea was written down by humans, humans who had agendas.  Are any of them more than that, any of the thousands of god’s we’ve invented so far, any of the hundreds of thousands of ways of worshiping them that we have also invented?  Are any of those ideas more than just human stories written in very poetic and compelling styles?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

I think we both see many mythological gods created by humans, I suspect that there is no other kind out there.  I was a christian once but that was many years ago now.  I used to believe as you do but the evidence simply did not stack up, I read the bible and came to realize I was reading a fairy tale.

 

Why people create these mythological beings is probably a long and complex question.  Some undoubtedly do it out of ignorance, how else does an ignorant man explain lighting or this planet etc.  Some do it to control other humans, “I’ve got this great moral plan for humanity but to get people to follow it I’ll wrap it up in a god idea and try to convince them that they’ll be punished by that god if they don’t follow my ideas”.  Some probably do it out of a cynical quest to get rich, L Ron Hubbard for example, who proclaimed before creating scientology that to get really rich you had to create a religion.  I’m sure there are more reasons but I doubt that any of those reasons include an actual god.

 

Your story is an old one, jesus must be real because those who followed him were persecuted for their beliefs.  Now firstly we can’t be sure that any of those persecutions actually happened any more than we can know that Jesus rose from the dead, it’s all just ancient stories in books who’s authorship we simply don’t know and who’s motivations we simply don’t know.  If they really did stand up for their beliefs then they probably did indeed really believe it but people have been convinced of fallacious causes in the past by good oratory rather than by personal observation so that does not prove that jesus really did what is claimed for him.  Which ‘god’ did the kamikaze pilots die for during the second world war?

 

The reward we are offered by jesus is one of the worlds great stories but there are other great stories which offer us as much.  The big question I always have is is there any truth to any of it?  Show me the evidence!  Christians teach us that we have a soul, we have no evidence for a soul outside christianity but they tell us we have one then they tell us that we could lose it if we don’t follow their book.  It looks like a cynical attempt at control by inventing a problem that only they can solve for a soul which they also invented from the outside.  I know it feels good to believe you are going to get this reward but that does not make it real.

 

Who ever said that life was fair, that life must be fair?  You’ll have to show me some evidence for that one I’m afraid otherwise it’s all just hot air.

 

Yes I believe I’m loved, my wife loves me, my children love me and my parent’s love me, what more could I need?

 

Russell

Edited by russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

In Japan the emperor was presented to the people as a god, the american’s made him stand in front of them and admit that he was just human as one of the surrender conditions.  Some Japanese committed suicide at this news.  During the war the Japanese people still believed he was a god and the kamikaze died for him, for their god.  I’m sure you and I can agree that we was not a god but they were, none the less, willing to give their lives for this false idea of god.

 

What else could you have meant than that life must be fair when you said “It just doesn't make sense that we all live in an unfair world and then we die….”

 

LOL we probably have more interesting and enjoyable Sunday’s than you but other than that our lives are probably very similar.  I’m married with five children and an amazing wife.  Nothing weird or sinful about me other than that I don’t follow your god.

 

You show me the ‘evidence or your faith’ and the muslims here will show me the evidence of their faith in a contradictory god but neither of you can show me any evidence to differentiate you one from the other and that’s what’s really needed when presented with two possible theories.

 

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree if I was a nominal christian or a true christian, there’s no way anyone can prove that one way or the other despite how often you may make that claim.  I can’t know that you really are a christian now no matter how often you might tell me that you are.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

So you can see why I have a problem with all these non-evidence based and contradictory faith positions, that’s a good start.  But you say you are a fool for chirst and ask who I am a fool for. I try really hard to be nobody’s fool.  Show me evidence that contradicts my beliefs and I’ll change them, I’ve don’t it often enough in the past and I expect the same to happen again in the future.  Does it make one foolish to follow where the evidence leads?

 

LOL and I try really hard not to insult Mickey Mouse, what of it.  Do you really think that non-existent beings would care if I insulted them especially by pointing out that they don’t exist?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

I guess in a trivial sense I am a fool for my wife but that is trivial and not what you meant I assume.

 

The argument that because something exists now we can follow causation backwards and know that something always existed has been shown to be false.  Quantum mechanics shows us, in theory and in experiment, the uncaused appearance of particles in a vacuum, the more perfect the vacuum the more particles you get proving that this idea of never ending causation is false.  I mentioned a particle; it was actually a virtual particle, burrowing across a potential barrier into Desitter space earlier.  Desitter space is the space we live in but the virtual particle did not have to burrow from somewhere rather it could virtually burrow across the potential barrier between nothing and desitter space thus triggering the expansion of local destitter space and causing the universe from nothing at all.  Of course there is also the multiverse idea in which our universe is created within an overarching multiverse full of universes with different properties, the multiverse may have always existed though I’m not sure what that would actually mean when time is a function of our space time and did not exist before the big bang anyway.  In neither case is a god required and in the earlier case much of the math necessary for this to be true has already been created and tested.  Quantum physics is in fact the single most accurately tested scientific theory ever invented.  Some of its predictions have been tested to an accuracy of 13 decimal places.

 

Have you heard of William of occam?  He pointed out that, all things being equal, the theory with the least assumptions was usually correct.  Under this well tested formulation god is a huge assumption, an assumption which adds nothing to the picture, an assumption without evidence at this stage.

 

You’re right atheists are outnumbered though the odds are shifting these days and please don’t forget that not very long ago anyone who believed that the earth was a sphere was significantly outnumbered by those who though it was flat.  Of course both were wrong but the spherical believers were less wrong than the flat earthers.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

I guess you can call the best that the human mind has ever come up with anything you like but I can’t say that your arguments will carry any weight when you have shown no sign what so ever that you actually have even the vaguest notion of what has been discovered.  If you want to be taken seriously you will have to show that you actually understand these things just a little bit and see what happens.  Till then I think we can all safely discount your uninformed opinions on science.

 

No the scientific ideas I have presented here are not underpinned by huge assumptions and that is the critical point.  God is a huge assumption without evidence but the science behind vacuum fluctuations is well tested and observed.  The idea of virtual particles tunnelling across potential barriers such as the idea I presented of a particle burrowing into desitter space is also an observed phenomenon with a very detailed theory to explain it, a theory which, as I pointed out, has been tested to 13 decimal places in some aspects.  So while the idea I presented is based on many very anti intuitive ideas they are ideas that have been tested and observed and explained by theory while god is an idea out there without any direct evidence or theory to explain his actions?  I think it’s pretty clear whose ideas William would have a problem with.

 

The Australian census data shows a clear rise in the number of non-believers over the last 100 years.  US statistics, while well behind ours, shows a similar pattern, in 2001 the figures rose to around 16% non-religious with the Jewish sector fell to slightly over 1% and Muslim was at around .7% so I guess it’s the censors and the people themselves who say that atheism and unbelief in general is on the rise. Interesting to note that, of the 47 studies examined in a recent meta-analysis there was a clear inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

A theory is the highest any idea ever gets in science.  We are not talking about the every day vernacular use of that term here but the scientific use of the word.  In Science a theory is the best idea anyone has ever come up with to explain a set of observations.  It means that no evidence has ever come to light which contradicts the theory and none of the best minds on this planet can see a reason why this theory might be false.  Evidence may come to hand tomorrow that proves the theory wrong as Newton found out when Einstein came along, but that has never happened for any currently accepted theory including evolutionary theory.

 

Darwin was not a believer in god, this is a fallacy that has been pushed by religious people of various stripes for a long time but in his letters before his daughter’s death and after he clearly spelled this out.  He did start out as a believer but lost his faith probably before boarding the Beagle or at least before he left it.  From then on he remained an agnostic for the rest of his life.

 

We may not be able to ‘prove’ that apes are our cousins in a sense acceptable to you but no one has yet come up with another explanation for our shared DNA especially the shared errors that we and the great apes have other than a common ancestor.  Rejecting it is illogical I’m afraid unless you can explain these patterns by some other mechanism.  God dun it does not make logical sense, why would a perfect god make the exact same mistake only three times in the animal kingdom and why in the specific three organisms that all our science says are most closely related.  Did you know that three of the four steps in the production of Vitamin C still exist and work in our bodies, only one step is broken?  Sorry but you are down to illogical rubbish when you claim this at least until you can provide a rational alternative.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

Theories are never equal to facts.  Facts are what we observe, facts are the world around us.  By definition a theory is the explanatory framework we wrap around a group of observed facts to explain them.  The maths and logic which relates observations.  With a valid theory we can go from one set of observations or an experimental setup and we can predict what will be observed next.  The big bang theory did this when it correctly predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation before it was observed.  No one would have expected to see this without the theory.

 

To get from being a hypothesis to being a theory the idea has to pass the most rigorous tests that anyone can come up with.  It must not contradict any know observations and it must predict things which we did not already know.  That latter part is crucial.  It’s not a theory to merely describe what we see, anyone can do that, the power of theories is that they can show us things we did not know about this place.

 

You’ll note that I’m talking about the word theory in the scientific sense not in the every day language sense which is something else entirely though many religious people like to confuse the two.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rusell i have 3 videos for you, these two videos explain evidence for existence of God from scientific non-religious view

 

evidence from Macrocomos

 

evidence from Microcomos

 

evidence from DNA

 

and if you are intrested i can show you why Quran is book of God, mathematical evidence that it comes from God and not humans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These a good videos and anyone who says there is no God after watching it is willfully ignorant of that fact. I could forgive ignorance, but willful ignorance is inexcusable.

Now one other thing, show the mathematical proof the Quran is what you say. Keep in mind, these videos are mathematical proof of God's existence not proof the Quran is the book of God.

 

stuff mentioned in the quran 

 

1.Angels - Devils 88 times

 

2.This world - Next world 115 times

 

3. Root word for Messanger/Prophet (Rasool) 513 times -All names of the prophets(abraham, moses, jesus, muhammed,jacob, solomon etc.....) also 513 times

 

4. God said in the Quran that Adam and jesus are equal in sight of God, but when we count adam's and jesus names both are mentioned 25 times

 

5. Heat -Coolness 4 times

 

6. God said:

41:36 And if there comes to you from Satan an evil suggestion, then seek refuge in Allah . Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

 

Iblis is the name of greatest Satan

Iblis is mentioned 11 times - Seeking refuge also 11 times

 

7. Wine 6 times - intoxication, intoxicated, intoxicant also 6 times

 

8. Advice/Preach 25 times - Tongue 25 times

 

9. worry 13 times -reassurence 13 times

 

10. Sabbath is mentioned 7 times, and sabbath is 7th day in a week

 

11. Day of ressurection 70 times --- That day 70 times

 

12. Word nebi is used for prophet in the quran, and it has been derived from word nebe wich means "information/news"

 

Nebi (prophet) 80 times --- Nebe 80 times

 

13. Near 10 times -Away 10 times

 

14. God said in the quran that people who denied God's signs are like dogs

 

Dog is mentioned 5 times - Rejecting God's signs 5 times

 

15. Word day is mentioned 365 times, same number as it is in a year

Word month is mentioned 12 times, same number as it is in a year

 

16. Word Night is mentioned 92 times, Chapter Night in the quran is 92th chapter of the quran.

 

17. from the start of the story about people in the cave to the word 309th there is exactly 309 words

 

18. Human 65 times - All words from wich humans were created (dust+sperm+embryo+feotus+bones+flesh) 65 times also

 

19. chapter Ant, begins with 2 letter, T and S, like this

 

27:1 T S, Those are the Signs of the Qur’an and a Clear Book. (Chapter ant is 27 chapter of the quran, has 93 verses) 

 

Letter T is mentioned troughout the chapter 27 times, wich the chapter number in the quran, while letter S is mentioned troughout the book 93 times, just as same number of verses in that chapter

 

20. Word thunder is mentioned in the quran in 2 different verses

 

the funny thing is that both verses have 19 words and 84 letters.

 

is all of this coincidence???????

 

 

Is this coincidence

 

from north pole to mekka and from mekka to south pole ratio is 1,618 wich is golden ratio

 

and word mekka in the quran is positioned exactly at the golden ratio position,.

is this also coincidence?

 

God says in the quran , "over it is 19"

 

and we open first chapter of the quran and we extract 6 different combination, probably there is more, wich is divisble with number 19, is this coincidence. if it is you try to make such programmed nummerical system and see if it is coincidence.

 

do you really believe this is coincidence.

 

Quran is the only religious book on earth wich provide evidence, wich can be tested by everyone, quran is a living miracle.

 

 

here is something wich nobody can match

 

 

TTENTION PEOPLE

 

here is another great miracle in the Quran

 

This is orginal text of the Quran, uthmanic style,

 

FirstSurahKoran_(fragment).jpg

 

fdh669.jpg

a9pw3.jpg

 

 

for your confirmation use this calculator

http://www.comptune.....=10&places=100

 

1)

11234567 : 19 = 591293 NO DECIMAL

 

2)

119171211191843 : 19 = 6272169010097 NO DECIMAL

 

3)

134665327663354456558355537537 : 19= 7087648824387076660966080923 NO DECIMAL

 

4)

139297 : 19 = 59963 NO DECIMAL

 

5)

174423439 : 19 = 9180181 59963 NO DECIMAL

 

 

Can anyone recite a text , without using any calculations, computers, calculus, nor using pen or paper. JUST FROM YOUR MIND?

 

THAT IS WHY THIS IS IMPOSIBLE TO CREATE SUCH QURAN, THAT IS WHY GOD SAYS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HUMANS TO CREATE QURAN, AND THAT QURAN IS HIS BOOK.

 

One of the simplest ways to represent the first chapter is by giving each letter a value according to its order of appearance among all the letters making up the whole chapter. Let us take an example. Here is a popular translation for the very first words revealed by God in Genesis chapter one.

 

genesis_trans.png

 

As can be seen above each letter gets a value representing its order of appearance in the verse. A repeated letter gets the same initial value it was assigned.

 

The opening verse is "بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم" which means "In the name of God, The Compassionate, The Merciful". The first letter is Baa and gets thus the numeric value 1, the second letter to appears is the letter Seen and gets thus the value 2, the third letter to appear is Meem and gets the value 3.

 

Putting these values side-by-side right-to-left results in a huge number consisting of 163 digits. This number is also divisible perfectly by key number 19.

 

 

Here is the number:

 

f002.png

 

Number under fact 2:

 

91054215445143610512114212035471020361051215312949 10195417716310181523541771654491164910121529134104 14111129134104910115431410135331087549387549103512 5417655113854

 

Result of division by 19:

 

47923271286917689743218006334458431768974323848920 57997588271742200801864090344469034163221857439002 17953225860055215850227057965963730289151341633427 653560795466

 

that number is extracted from fatiha's letters from orginal quran

2vs007n.jpg

 

can you create a chapter wich could be divisible with 19??

 

for your confirmation , big numaber calculator

http://www.comptune.....=10&places=200

Edited by andalusi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

So the first video is the one you showed here before.  I already pointed out that it has some fatal flaws as the announcer stated when he said he was going to ignore the vastness of the universe and just focus on earth.  This omission destroyed the thesis it was trying to spin.  The unlikely nature of this planet becomes mundane when you realise that there are literally billions of billions of billions of planets in our universe each with different sets of parameters.  The chances that you’ll find a life friendly one somewhere in this universe become close to 100%, in fact the number of life friendly planets you’ll find is probably in the billions.

 

The bacterial flagellum argument was destroyed in court when the intelligent design movement brought it up as evidence for their argument.  The fundamentalist christian judge was convinced that the motor was not designed when many of its claimed “irreducibly complex” components were shown to have precursors, the flagellum was simply a modified excretory organ which is well known by biochemists.  I’m amazed that this discredited information is still being pushed out there.  Are you not aware of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case?

 

The details presented for the sperm sound compelling but that is a lie.  The details given of the assembly line like production of sperm is simply wrong.  Please look this process up on any reputable medical site.  Sperm are produced by meiotic division not by some assembly line like production facility with robots putting in the necessary pieces from separate assembly lines.  This sounds amazing, and it would be if true, but it’s a lie designed to push a case it is not the truth.

 

Yes it’s true that some scientists now say that more faith is required to believe in evolution than to believe in creation.  I think that’s a well-known fact but the numbers are interesting.  The scientists setup a tongue in cheek answer to the creationists lists of scientists who don’t believe in evolution.  I saw one of the creationists lists recently which had 1700 ‘scientists’ on it.  The real scientist’s list only includes people who are credentialed in evolutionary biology, in other words you need be trained in a field of science that lets you speak about evolution to count.  The list of 1700 presented by the creationists did not include this limitation so I applied it myself.  After I removed the robotic engineers and computer scientists and mechanical engineers what I found was that only 9 scientists were left who had some credentials in biology though some were rather remote biological sciences but I’ll allow them for the sake of argument.  Next the scientists list is compiled only of people named Steve (in honour of Stephen Jay Gould).  Now apply that filter to the creationist list and what’s left.  Actually they did have one Steve in their list who was ‘qualified’ to comment.  Project Steve (have a look its online) had, at last count, over 1200 scientists credentialed in evolutionary biology named Steve or a derivative. So that’s 1200 credentialed scientists trained to consider evolutionary biology compared to just one from the creationist camp.  Those numbers are very telling I’d have to suggest but I agree that some scientists do make this claim, far less than one per cent but they do exist.

 

The claim made that mathematicians have stated that DNA is beyond chance is in fact true but chance is only one part of evolutionary theory and natural selection is not chance it is a lawful process which virtually no serious mathematician doubts can produce the DNA we see in fact we’ve even seen DNA like products produced by chance plus selection in computer models and in the lab in single cell origin cultures we’ve seen real novel new DNA produced while we watched which is a topic I’ve gone into here before.

 

Stephen C. Meyer is from the discovery institute and he’s a christian creationist.  The vast majority of scientists disagree with his ideas and many of his claims are proven to be false due to counter evidence we already know about and did before he made them but they do sound convincing to a lay audience unaware of the existing body of human knowledge.  Meyer was to be a witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case for the losing side but he withdrew before the case went to court though his thesis was one of those tested and disproved in court.

 

Meyer makes the claim in that video that it is always intelligence that produces information but we’ve seen information produced without intelligence.  We’ve seen it in computer simulations of evolution in action in synthetic biospheres and in designing code to run computer chips without human programmers input and we’ve seen bacterial colonies, produced from just a single individual, which go on to evolve the abilities to digest new food sources that their progenitors could not by evolving new genetic information while we watch.  This isn’t speculation we’ve watched it happen time and again so Meyer is lying or ignorant when he makes this claim.

 

He then suggest that chance alone simply would not have time to assemble the life we see around us but evolution is driven by natural selection which is not chance so he’s ignoring the most critical part of the process while trying to discredit it and he’s forgetting that it’s not just one person or machine doing the searching here but the entire biosphere which contains who many organisms today?  Billions of billions of billions of billions at least.  That’s a lot of individuals doing that searching.

 

He goes on to state that mutations tend to degrade the existing information which is true but he fails to mention that a small percentage of mutations enhance the information, mutations such as those which allowed those in lab bacterial colonies to learn how to digest a novel new food source so again he’s wrong or at best purposefully misleading his audience here.

 

Sorry but I don’t feel that using dishonest misleading and false evidence such as this can prove anything about god.  Have you got any real evidence for your position?  Let me present a direct counter to the claims Meyer was making here.  He claims that organisms were intelligently designed, did that mean no evolution at all, no speciation?  If so how do you explain that we share a specific defect in our Four Gene vitamin C production system with the great apes, our closest living relatives?  Does god make mistakes?  Does he make the same mistakes over and over?  Is that really a god worthy of your worship if you still insist on believing in him despite all this clear evidence against him?

 

The use of discredited and disproved ideas presented as support for any concept suggests that the concept being supported is shaky at best or simply imaginary at worst.  Is your god shaky or imaginary because that’s where this evidence points if that’s the best you can come up with.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed


Can you excuse someone who does not accept your arguments when they are based on well-known falsehoods and full of contradictions to the evidence?  Do you still condemn someone for not believing your position when it is presented like this?  When your best evidence is misquoted or out dated and full of misunderstandings or even outright lies?  Should any rational person really accept your view based on this rubbish?  Sorry but that’s not how this works for anyone without a pre-existing religious bias.


Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×